Examining the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence ...€¦ · Examining the Relationship...

Examining the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Cultural Intelligence, and Teacher

Candidates’ Self-Efficacy in Delivering Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices

Authors: Tia N. Barnes, PhD.

Bridgette Johnson, PhD. Yu Xia, M.S.

Barnes, Johnson, and Xia 2

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to inform our teacher preparation program in ways that increase

teacher candidates’ self-efficacy in meeting the academic and SEL needs of diverse children. Our

research questions were:

1) How do University of Delaware’s early childhood education teacher candidates’ level of

cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy in using culturally responsive

practices compare to those of practicing teachers as documented in the research literature?

2) Do early childhood education teacher candidates’ cultural intelligence and emotional

intelligence predict their self-efficacy in delivering social emotional learning instruction and

their outcome expectancies for using culturally responsive practices in the classroom

during placements and student teaching experiences?

Forty-five juniors and seniors in the early childhood education program at the University of

Delaware completed a survey that examined their demographic information, emotional and cultural

intelligence, their outcome expectancies from engaging in culturally responsive teaching and their

efficacy in delivering social emotional learning instruction. Data were analyzed using multiple

regression analyses. The results suggested that teacher candidates’ level of emotional intelligence

did not relate to their SEL beliefs (i.e., comfort and commitment to engaging in SEL). Similarly

teacher candidates’ level of cultural intelligence did not influence their expectations of outcomes

related to engaging in culturally responsive teaching. As research expands in the areas of cultural

and emotional intelligence in teachers and teacher candidates grows, the authors encourage further

exploration of the relationships between teacher skillsets and practice to inform the creation of

course content, professional development, and coaching opportunities to support teacher

candidates in their attainment of skills needed to support all students in their classrooms.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

Study Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Social Emotional Learning & Culturally Responsive Pegagogy ...................................................... 5 Self-Efficacy and Teacher Practice ............................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 7

Methods .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sample ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Measures .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Analysis................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Regression Analysis Findings ................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

References ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................... 16


EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE, AND TEACHER CANDIDATES’ SELF-EFFICACY IN DELIVERING

CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING PRACTICES

INTRODUCTION

During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, 68 teacher candidates graduated from the

Human Development and Family Sciences’ early childhood education (ECE) program at the

University of Delaware. Of those graduates, nearly half (46%) went to work in school settings that

serve a majority racial and ethnic minority population. Research has confirmed that highly effective

teaching includes promoting students’ social and emotional well-being in addition to meeting

students’ academic needs, and this is particularly important for students from racially and

culturally diverse backgrounds (Paris & Alim, 2014; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994). However, a

2017 survey conducted by the Rodel Foundation found that teacher lack a sense of self-efficacy in

supporting students’ social and emotional needs due to a need for more training in social emotional

learning (SEL; Rodel Foundation of Delaware, 2017). For educators working in culturally diverse

settings, supporting SEL needs becomes an even greater challenge given the centrality of culture in

the way emotions are expressed and interpreted and a lack of cultural synchronization between

teachers and students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds (Irvine, 1990). The results

associated with not meeting student SEL needs within culturally diverse classroom settings are

deleterious and complicit in race-based disproportionality in school discipline policies and

practices (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010), in special education placement (Codrington &

Fairchild, 2010) and in low teacher expectations (Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson, & Bridgest, 2003).

In response to these pervasive trends, culturally responsive teaching practices have been theorized

and developed as a promising approach to meeting diverse students’ SEL needs and bolstering

student learning and achievement (Barnes, 2019).

STUDY PURPOSE To deliver SEL effectively using culturally responsive practices, teachers must draw from skillsets

associated with emotional intelligence and cultural intelligence (see Figure 1; Barnes, forthcoming).

Fortunately, these skillsets can be taught and there are measures to assess areas of need to support

individual’s attainment of these skills. In this study, we examined ECE teacher candidates’


emotional intelligence, cultural intelligence, and teacher self-efficacy in using culturally responsive

practices. The purpose of this study was to inform our teacher preparation program in ways that

increase teacher candidates’ self-efficacy in meeting the academic and SEL needs of diverse

children. Examining teacher candidates’ self-efficacy in using culturally responsive practices will

give us insight into how prepared our teacher candidates feel they are to use these practices, which

can inform the way we support them in their teacher education program. Moreover, their self-

efficacy in providing instruction is positively related to teaching performance (Caprara,

Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006).

This study sought to benefit UD’s teacher preparation program by providing data on how

efficacious UD’s ECE teacher candidates perceived themselves to be regarding their ability to

implement culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Moreover, we felt the program would

gain information on candidates’ levels of cultural and emotional intelligence. In both cases, this

“intelligence” signifies skillsets that can be taught to candidates. UD faculty members and

instructors can use data from this study for targeted instruction. Given that 46% of ECE graduates

teacher in classrooms serving primarily diverse students, this work aligns with the Center for the

Study of Diversity’s mission of facilitating dialogues about ways UD faculty and instructors can

support our teacher candidates in having a positive social and academic impact on young children

from diverse populations. By examining self-efficacy in culturally responsive practices and skillsets,

we can position UD faculty to equip our teacher candidates with the skills necessary to: (a) serve

pupils from diverse backgrounds, (b) challenge and address systemic inequities in their prospective

classrooms, and (c) promote equity education for historically underserved pupils.

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING & CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEGAGOGY

SEL is the process used by individuals to acquire and successfully apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to support the understanding and management of emotions, set and achieve constructive goals, be empathetic toward others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning, 2015). In recent years, there has been much research on using social-emotional competencies to support student success. Relatedly, educators in the K-12 setting have expressed that they see value in and have an interest in using SEL to support their students’ success (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013). As K-12 schools work to adopt, create, and modify their current SEL curricula, challenges with bridging research to practice must be considered. One of the challenges is ensuring that SEL


instruction is presented in a culturally-responsive manner to ensure that the curriculum incorporates the experiences of students from diverse backgrounds.

To truly support the SEL development of students from culturally diverse backgrounds, there is a

need for a paradigm shift that not only focuses on the challenges faced by students, but also on the

strengths and resilience factors of each student (Dowdy et al., 2015). One method to shift this

paradigm is to employ culturally responsive pedagogy in SEL instruction. We utilize Gay’s (2000;

2002) definition of culturally responsive teaching to describe the use of culturally responsive

pedagogy in SEL, which states that culturally responsive teaching is the use of cultural

characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of students of color as channels for teaching students

more effectively. The premise for culturally responsive teaching is to situate academic knowledge

within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students to make learning more personally

meaningful, increase interest in the academic topic, and support the ease and thoroughness of

learning (Gay, 2002). We expand on the notion of situating knowledge within the realm of student

interests and lived experiences by incorporating Paris’s (2012) call for educators to support

children and youth in sustaining the competence of their communities while also gaining access to

the majority culture. Thus, we define the use of culturally responsive teaching in SEL instruction as

reinforcing and teaching expressions of social and emotional competencies important in the

majority culture (i.e., understanding and management of emotions, setting and achieving

constructive goals, empathy toward others, establishing and maintaining positive relationships, and

making responsible decisions) by utilizing the lived experiences and frames of reference of students

to make SEL more personally meaningful and support learning of social and emotional

competencies. This definition suggests that to effectively deliver SEL instruction using culturally

responsive pedagogy, educators need to have both emotional and cultural competence.

SELF-EFFICACY AND TEACHER PRACTICE In this project, we test hypotheses about the relationships between the constructs of’ emotional and

cultural competence and their relationships to teaching students SEL. Ideally, we could examine

relationships between these constructs in conjunction with teacher candidate observations of SEL

instruction. Due to resource limitations, however, we begin by examining the relationship between

teacher candidates’ emotional and cultural competence, teacher candidates’ SEL self-efficacy, and

teacher candidates’ outcome expectations for engaging in culturally responsive pedagogy.


As part of Bandura’s social-cognitive theory, he defined self-efficacy as, ‘‘beliefs in one’s capabilities

to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’’ (Bandura,

1997, p. 3). Research has shown that teacher self-efficacy is an important variable in teacher

effectiveness that is consistently related to teacher behaviors and student outcomes (Bray-Clark &

Bates, 2003). Within social-cognitive theory, Bandura (1977) also proposed a second type of

expectancy belief called outcome expectations. Bandura defined outcome expectations as a person's

belief that a given behavior would lead to certain outcomes. It is hypothesized that individuals are

less likely to engage in practices that they do not expect to lead to positive outcomes. Therefore,

teachers would not engage in instructional practices that they do not anticipate would lead to

positive outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Our research questions were:

1) How do UD’s ECE teacher candidates’ level of cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence,

and self-efficacy in delivering SEL instruction and using culturally responsive practices

compare to those of practicing teachers as documented in the research literature?

2) Do ECE teacher candidates’ cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence predict their

self-efficacy in delivering SEL instruction and their outcome expectancies for using

culturally responsive practices in the classroom during placements and student teaching

experiences?

We hypothesized that UD’s ECE teacher candidate’s level of cultural intelligence, emotional

intelligence and self-efficacy in engaging in SEL instruction and using culturally responsive

practices would be similar to those of practicing teachers since these skillsets are not widely

covered as part of teacher preparation programs. We hypothesized that candidate’s cultural

intelligence and emotional intelligence would predict their self-efficacy in using SEL practices and

their outcome expectancies for using culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Specifically,

we hypothesized that those with higher levels of cultural and emotional intelligence would have

higher rates of self-efficacy and would score higher on outcome expectancies for the use of

culturally responsive practices in the classroom.


METHODS

SAMPLE Following IRB approval, students who were juniors and seniors in the Early Childhood Education

program at the University of Delaware during the spring and fall semesters of 2018 were recruited

to complete our survey. Teacher candidates were informed about the study during their class

sessions and through emails. Teacher candidates who were interested in the study emailed the

principal investigator (PI), who sent an email with links to the survey. Participants received a gift

card for survey participation. A total of 69 participants started the survey, 45 of who provided

complete data. The sample demographic characteristics for these 45 participants are provided in

Appendix Table 1.

MEASURES An online survey was created using the following measures:

Background information. Teacher candidates provided demographic information (age, gender,

and race/ethnicity), educational background (highest degree completed, current class standing, and

whether they received training in CRT practices), and student, classroom, and school characteristics

for current school placement (student age/grade level, number of students in class, percentage of

students with identified disability, percentage of students who are English Language Learners,

percentage of students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and school area).

Emotional intelligence. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer,

Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) is an ability-based test designed to measure the four branches of the

emotional competence model of Mayer and Salovey (1997). The MSCEIT consists of 141 items that

yield a total emotional competence score, two Area scores, and four Branch scores (Mayer et al.,

2002). Test takers were asked to (a) perceive the emotions expressed by a face or in designs, (b)

generate a mood and solve problems with that mood, (c) define the causes of different emotions,

and (d) understand the progression of emotions. General consensus scoring, which involved

comparison of responses to a normative sample, was used. The MSCEIT scoring software provided

standardized scores, which have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Researchers have

found the MSCEIT tool to have adequate reliability (.86 overall), and to be valid (i.e., face validity,

factor structure, discriminant validity, concurrent validity).


Cultural intelligence. The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS; Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008) is a 37-

item measure of a person’s ability to function effectively in culturally diverse situations. The

measure is based on Ang and Van Dyne’s (2008) conceptualization of cultural competency. All

items were averaged to create a total composite score, which had a possible range of 1 to 7, with

higher scores indicating greater cultural competency. Researchers have found the tool to be valid

(i.e., factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, incremental validity).

Culturally responsive teaching outcome expectancies. The Culturally Responsive Teaching

Outcome Expectancy (CRTOE; Siwatu, 2007) scale includes 26-items designed to assess teachers’

beliefs that engaging in CRT practices will have positive classroom and student outcomes.

Participants rate the probability from 0 (entirely uncertain) to 100 (entirely certain) that a targeted

behavior will lead to the specified outcome (e.g., ‘‘Using culturally familiar examples will make

learning new concepts easier.’’). Participants’ responses to all 26 items were summed to generate a

total score with higher scores suggesting more beliefs in positive outcomes associated with CRT.

Siwatu (2007) found this measure to be reliable and valid (α = .95).

SEL efficacy. The Teacher SEL Beliefs Scale (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011)

measures beliefs about SEL comfort, which refers to how comfortable a teacher is in implementing

SEL (e.g., “I am comfortable providing instruction on social and emotional skills to my students”),

and commitment, which refers to a teacher’s commitment to improving his or her skills in SEL (e.g.,

“I want to improve my ability to teach social and emotional skills to students”). Teachers

responded to seven items (four measuring comfort and three commitment) on a Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Brackett and colleagues (2011) found

acceptable levels of reliability and provided evidence of validity for the scale.

ANALYSIS

To address our research questions, two multiple regression analyses were performed using the

following predictors: cultural intelligence total score and emotional intelligence total score. The

first multiple regression investigated whether the named predictors could significantly predict

teacher candidates’ social emotional learning beliefs. The second multiple regression investigated

whether the named predictors could significantly predict teacher candidates’ culturally responsive

teaching outcome expectancies. Due to the large difference in scales between the emotional


intelligence and cultural intelligence measures, the emotional intelligence total score was

transformed to natural logarithmic scales to avoid skewness towards large values. The natural log

scale can be interpreted as changes in percentage, and the coefficient estimates was divided by 100

accordingly.

FINDINGS

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the four focal variables are shown in Tables 1-5. The

results of the regression analyses are presented in Tables 5-7. The majority of participants in the

study were between the ages of 18 and 22. A majority of the sample, 97.8% identified as female

and 82% of the sample was composed of individuals who identified as White or Caucasian. A

majority of the students had aspirations to work with children who were preschool-aged to 2nd

grade. In their current classroom placements, most students were in classrooms with at least one

child with an identified disability and one who has an English Language Learner. Forty-one

percent of the sample was placed in a classroom in which a majority of the children were from

racially and/or ethnically diverse backgrounds. When asked about whether they had received

training on culturally responsive teaching practices, 46.7% of students reported that they had,

22% reported that they had not, and 31% were unsure of whether they had received this training.

The intercorrelation tables revealed significant correlations between subscales within measures

but no significant results across measures.

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics of the focal variables. All measures had fair (SEL beliefs)

to excellent reliability. The mean for cultural intelligence was 4.72. The mean for emotional

intelligence was 95.90 which was in the low-average range of emotional intelligence.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS FINDINGS

In testing the associations between social-emotional learning (SEL) beliefs and the predictor

variables ( total cultural intelligence and total emotional intelligence), the model explained about

32% variance in the outcome variable and was not significant (R2 = 0.32, F (2,42) = .703, p = .50).

Similarly, the model testing associations between culturally responsive teaching (CRT) outcome

expectancies and emotional and cultural intelligence was not significant and the overall model

explained only 5% of the variance in the outcome variable (R2 = 0.05, F (2, 42) = 1.15, p = .32).


CONCLUSIONS

Our teacher candidate sample’s racial make-up was consistent with national sample of teachers but

slightly higher than the national sample for teacher candidates. Most of the teacher candidates

reported that their current placement was in a classroom with a diverse student population (i.e.,

racial, linguistic, and ability). As the nation’s student population becomes increasingly diverse, it is

imperative that future and current teachers gain culturally responsive pedagogical knowledge to

support these children who are from racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds that are different

from the majority of teachers’. A majority of our sample, reported either not receiving training on

culturally responsive teaching practices or being unsure about whether they had received this

training. This is concerning as these students were either in their last year of the program and were

currently participating in student teaching or were in their junior year in the program. Further

examination of this finding of this program could include reviewing the teacher education program

to determine when, where, and how culturally responsive teaching is taught throughout the

curriculum. Scholars in multicultural education have argued for systematic infusion of multicultural

education throughout the teacher education curriculum (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

When examining the relationships between teacher candidates’ emotional and cultural intelligence

and their SEL beliefs and culturally responsive teaching outcome expectancies, the data suggests

that there is no relationship between these variables. Specifically, teacher candidates’ level of

emotional intelligence did not relate to their SEL beliefs (i.e., comfort and commitment to engaging

in SEL). Similarly teacher candidates’ level of cultural intelligence did not influence their

expectations of outcomes related to engaging in culturally responsive teaching. Though

disappointing, these results suggest that exploring the relationship between emotional and cultural

competence and teaching practice may require direct measure of this relationship or the use of

different measures of self-efficacy to explore self-efficacy as a mediator. We anticipate exploring

new measures of this relationship in future studies.

LIMITATIONS There were several limitations in this study. The first is that our study included a small sample of

teacher candidates from one university. We therefore caution the reader in making generalizations

from these findings for teacher candidates in other universities. When comparing the demographic

statistics of our sample with the larger sample of teacher candidates in institutes of higher


education, our sample included a larger number of participants who identified as White/Caucasian

(U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Another study limitation of the study is that we focused on

teacher candidates’ beliefs and expectations regarding SEL and culturally responsive teaching

instead of their practice. While beliefs and expectations are related to practice (Bray-Clark & Bates,

2003), we cannot draw clear conclusions about the relationship between emotional intelligence,

cultural intelligence, and teaching practice without examining these relationships directly. Future

research is needed to examine how the skillsets measured as part of cultural intelligence and

emotional intelligence are related to teacher practice. Another limitation we encountered as part of

this project is a limitation in the field of teacher emotional and cultural intelligence. Though

research has been conducted on ways to support teachers’ emotional intelligence and its

relationship to creating a positive classroom climate ( Brackett et al., 2011), there has been very

limited research on teacher’s cultural intelligence and very little research on whether and how

teacher’s emotional intelligence influences their teaching practice related to SEL and culturally

responsive pedagogy. As research expands in these areas, we can further explore the relationships

between teacher skillsets and practice and begin to create course content, professional

development, and coaching opportunities to support teacher candidates in their attainment of skills

needed to support all students in their future classrooms.


REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Barnes, T. N. (2019) Changing the landscape of social emotional learning in urban schools: What are we currently focusing on and where do we go from here? Urban Review, 1-39. doi: 10.1007/s11256-019-00534-1

Barnes, T. N. (Forthcoming). Providing social-emotional learning instruction using culturally responsive teaching. Manuscript under Review.

Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46, 27-36.

Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26, 13-22.

Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. A report for CASEL. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-490.

Codrington, J., & Fairchild, H. H. (2012). Special education and the mis-education of African American children: A call to action. The Association of Black Psychologists Washington, DC.

Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning. (2015). Federal legislation to promote social and emotional learning. Retrieved from https://casel.squarespace.com/federal-policy-and-legislation/

Dowdy, E., Furlong, M., Raines, T. C., Bovery, B., Kauffman, B., Kamphaus, R. W., ...& Murdock, J. (2015). Enhancing school-based mental health services with a preventive and promotive approach to universal screening for complete mental health. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25, 178-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929951

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.


Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.

Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure. Policies, practices, and prescriptions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 22-26.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational Implications (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS Publishers.

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Neal, L. V. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. T. (2003). The effects of African American movement styles on teachers' perceptions and reactions. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49-57.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.

Rodel Foundation of Delaware (2017). Educators speak up: social and emotional learning in Delaware, a survey of pre-k through 12th grade Delaware educators. Wilmington, DE: Authors.

Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086-1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011

U.S. Department of Education (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of TeacherEeducation, 53(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003


Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The Cultural intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16 – 38). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.


APPENDIX

Figure 1. Conceptual model of relationship between emotional intelligence (EI), cultural intelligence (CI), and delivering social emotional learning instruction using culturally responsive teaching (CRSEL)


Table 1

Demographic, student, and school characteristics of sample n %a

Age (n = 45) 18-22 43 95.6 23-30 2 4.4

Gender (n = 45) Male 1 2.2 Female 44 97.8

Race/ethnicity (n = 45) a Asian or Asian-American 2 4.4 Black or African-American 3 6.7 White or Caucasian 37 82.2 Two or more races 3 6.7

Education level (n = 45) High School or Equivalent 12 26.7 Some College (No Degree) 22 48.9 Associate Degree 6 13.3 Bachelor Degree 5 11.1

Position (n = 45) a General Education Teacher 11 24.4 Assistant Teacher/Paraprofessional 1 2.2 Special Education Teacher 3 6.7 Two or more positions 30 66.8

Student age/grade level (n = 45) Infants/toddlers 2 4.4 Preschool 8 17.78 Pre-Kindergarten 5 11.1 Kindergarten to 2nd 30 66.7

Number of students in current/average class (n = 45) < 6 2 4.4 6-8 1 2.2 9-12 7 15.6 13-17 11 24.4 18-24 19 42.2 25-30 5 11.1

% students with identified disability (n = 45) 0% 6 13.3 0-25% 23 51.1 26-50% 8 17.8 51-75% 3 6.7 76-100% 5 11.1

% students who are English Language Learners (n = 45) 0% 6 13.3 0-25% 25 55.6 26-50% 8 17.8 51-75% 5 11.1 76-100% 1 2.2


% students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds (n = 45)

0-25% 10 22.2 26-50% 16 35.6 51-75% 14 31.1 76-100% 5 11.1

School area (n = 45) a Urban 8 17.8 Suburban 26 57.8 Two or more areas 11 24.4

Received training in culturally responsive teaching practices (n = 45)

Yes 21 46.7 No 10 22.2 Not sure 14 31.1

Note. a Allowed multiple response choices.


Table 2

Intercorrelations between culturally responsive social-emotional learning instruction measures and

overall measures of cultural and emotional intelligence

Variable 1 2 3

1. Culturally responsive teaching expectancies —

2. Social-emotional learning beliefs .174 —

3. Total cultural IQ -.001 .177 —

4. Total emotional IQ .201 .030 -.197

Note. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.


Table 3


cultural intelligence dimensions

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Culturally responsive teaching expectancies —


3. Total cultural intelligence -.00 .18 —

4. Motivational cultural intelligence .13 .24 .54** —

5. Cognitive cultural intelligence -.14 .10 .84** .35* —

6. Metacognitive cultural intelligence .25 .19 .78** .40** .49**

7. Behavioral cultural intelligence -.11 .04 .71** .02 .45**

Note. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.


Table 4


emotional intelligence scores

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. CRT expectancies —


3. Total emotional IQ .20 .03 —

4. Emotional experiencing IQ .20 .02 .87** —

5. Emotional reasoning IQ .20 .06 .87** .53** —

6. Perceiving emotions IQ .17 .03 .72** .88** .38* —

7. Using emotions IQ .19 -.02 .83** .72** .59** .60**

8. Understanding emotions IQ .27 -.03 .81** .83** .91** .41**

9. Managing emotions IQ .12 .11 .79** .79** .92** .28

Note. The emotional experiencing IQ and emotional reasoning IQ represent two broad areas of

emotional intelligence, which are further subdivided into four scores corresponding to the Four-

Branch Model of emotional intelligence—perceiving emotions, using emotions, understanding

emotions, and managing emotions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2016). CRT = Culturally responsive

teaching. IQ = intelligence quotient. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.


Table 5

Descriptive statistics of focal variables

Mean SD Observed range n Reliability‡

Cultural intelligence 4.72 0.64 3.16—6.05 45 0.92

Emotional intelligence 95.90 16.04 59.6—124.2 45 0.96

SEL beliefs 4.43 0.42 3.29—5.00 45 0.75

CRT outcome expectancies 2313 239.28 1750.00—2600.00 45 0.95

Note. SEL = social-emotional learning. CRT = culturally responsive teaching. ‡Cronbach’s α is

provided for all variables except emotional intelligence, for which split-half reliability is provided.


Table 6

Results of the Multiple Regression Analyses on Social-Emotional Learning Beliefs.

β SE t p (Intercept) 3.48 1.79 1.946 .058† Cultural intelligence Total 0.12 0.10 1.185 .243 Emotional intelligence Total (log scale) .188 .82 .23 .82

Note. F(2,42) = .703, p = .501, R2 = 0.32. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


Table 7

Results of the Multiple Regression Analyses on Culturally Responsive Teaching Outcome Expectancies.

β SE t p (Intercept) 856.17 998.05 .86 .40 Cultural intelligence Total 18.90 57.77 .33 .75 Emotional intelligence Total (log scale) 692.77 456.42 1.52 .14

Note. F(2,42) =1.15, p = .32, R2 = 0.05. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Examining the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence ...€¦ · Examining the Relationship...

Documents

Transcript of Examining the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence ...€¦ · Examining the Relationship...